Peter Donald wrote:
On Fri, 22 Nov 2002 19:29, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:In the clazz package there is the basic framework in the org.apache.commons.clazz.* package. This package defines the Clazz class and its structure of clazz level properties and operations. The org.apache.commons.clazz.reflection.* is one implementation approach and I agree that this does not meet our requirements. I don't think that the existence of the .reflection package negates the value of using meta-meta structures defined in the clazz.* package.
That's why I started the info-meta merge discussion, and see clazz as aClazz is far from good for our purposes because it also tries to be a reflection based mechanism. We need to load things without classes being resolvable and so forth.
good solution.
If you put aside the reflection package, and assume instead something based on the clazz.* package - do you seen anything that is inconsistent or problematic?
I think it would be interesting to kick of a joint Avalon/clazz initiative from which we (Avalon) work with the clazz guys to (a) deliver a open meta model for an Avalon component, (b) contribute to the development of the clazz package in the process, and (c) ensure that the result is a complete and succinct definition of the "component" contract.
Cheers, Steve.
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
